The Conservative radio pundit industrial-complex is led by the most successful radio talk host of all time, Rush Limbaugh, currently riding out a quarter-billion dollar contract. His successor-apparent is Sean Hannity, followed by the likes of Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin and dozens more who are proven successes in selling advertising and generating profits, both nationally and in many local markets.
These broadcasters are careful not to call themselves newspersons or journalists, preferring the "disclaimer" that they are merely "entertainers". Because this blending of personality, passion and salesmanship intentionally and repetitively massages current events and historical fact to promote a singular political viewpoint, it plainly meets any historical definition of propaganda.
Hannity and Limbaugh omit basic and essential counterpoints to their arguments, carefully prune callers and routinely ignore many important national stories critical of NeoCon politicians and their cronies in business. The most listened-to broadcasters on the air today by far, should they have any responsibility to meet "traditional" broadcasting ethics when discussing politics on public airwaves? If so, what should be the criteria and who would be the enforcer/arbiter for this?
This thread invites discussion on what broadcasting in America should be, in light of what it's come to. America abandoned government-imposed regulation on journalistic balance in 1987 and today the biggest player in radio boldly ignores any appearance of self-regulation in the representation of our society's actual sociopolitical balance. Creating a Warm and Fuzzy NeoCon Habitat Imagine a radio safe haven where you can come to hear the latest political developments and discussion, but where, like the Harlem Globetrotters, the same side always wins. First, Rush and Hannity will offer pure right wing solace, insulating you from the complexities of counterpoints. Then, you can even join in and blow off some steam in bashing the opposition.
Hannity greets pals saying "you're a great American" while labeling his foes "un-American" with a hair trigger, making clear the sides and boundaries on his air, in spite of the famous American creed "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" (Thomas Paine). Hannity's invective pits Americans against Americans deliberately and publicly, a line not crossed by former generations of American broadcasters. Should those of us who hide relevant items and incite hateful rhetoric be allowed to continue without as much as public censure?
Though presently legal, the problem with Rush, Sean and the others lay in their professional and personal ethics, withholding balance as a choice to increase persuasiveness over a public they deem incapable of processing information (and coming to the same conclusions).
This is particularly shifty when they speak of morality, "character" or "values" because, unlike schools and most parents, they condone the smear job, impugning the dignity of their ideological opponents with a menu of "dirty trick" tactics: guilt-by-association, overgeneralization, exaggeration, name-calling and fear mongering using nebulous, unspecified predictions of chaos and calamity. At the same time they claim to be presenting "the truth" in a "fair and balanced" way, they shuffle off the most basic responsibilities of public reporting - presenting the whole story.
When public radio was first introduced after World War I, the government knew well how the new medium might be abused. It was therefore regulated to promote responsible, socially uplifting programming only, including news, weather, entertainment and public service messages. To prevent the "noise pollution" advertising represented, spots were limited during family listening hours. During the Great Depression however, station owners succumbed to round-the-clock advertising as the only way to stay afloat. Once given this toe-hold, sponsors began to leverage their financial clout to influence programming.
This leads us to questions of responsibility on public airwaves. For decades, the FCC has sought to impose fines on broadcasters like Howard Stern for scatological content, purportedly policing radio for social appropriateness, but have not considered the civic impact of lopsided political speech - not only on our young, but anyone underinformed on a given issue. Leaving America in The Dark Limbaugh and Hannity know there is more then one side to a story, but choose to present only the news and opinions they select. This intellectual dishonesty keeps things cut and dry, unlike real life. Personally, I hope my daughters can learn to understand the many complex sides of an issue, discerning as Oscar Wilde said, "The truth is rarely pure and never simple". If Sean Hannity hopes the same for his children, he certainly does not for his listeners, those who patronize his sponsors, vote and contribute as he indicates, and evangelize his causes against his opponents.
As parents, journalistic integrity should be an important moral issue. It is the responsibility of any ethical person, including commentator-entertainers to refrain from knowingly presenting relevant facts in an incomplete manner. For example, Hannity was recently surveying young voters, asking them to name a single accomplishment of Barack Obama's. No respondent listed a single accomplishment. Sean intimated that Obama's success stems solely from his charm and that his presidential qualifications should be questioned. Yet Hannity failed to ask the same voters to list a single accomplishment of John McCain, Hillary Clinton or any other politician, conflating general political ignorance with ominous misgivings over Obama. Each and every day, he presents discussions in this same logical vacuum.
Basic fourth grade essay writing teaches children to consider all available information, weighing multiple sides with logic and intelligence. Ninth grade debating teaches kids to challenge assumptions, scrutinize information carefully and construct reasoned conclusions only after arguments have been vetted in open discussion. Journalism 101 instructs us to gather information objectively, reporting multiple perspectives responsibly so as to allow listeners to formulate their own opinions.
These disciplines also teach the history of "yellow journalism", a blight on American society in which competing newspaper publishers slanted the news to increase profits, prestige or readership, intertwining commerce and politics in dereliction of journalistic ethics. Worse still was the growing scourge of propaganda -- state-sponsored stories planted in media to persuade or mislead, intentionally fomenting fear or hate.
The original 1928 book Propaganda was first published by Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud who made considerable use of his uncle's revolutionary psychological insights. Considered "the father of public relations", Bernays fabricated news and hatched publicity stunts for decades, aiding the U.S. government and largest corporations, including the staging of fake rallies of support, and fake riots in third world countries to justify military thuggery. Cited by Hitler and Goebbels as a major influence, Bernays showed how to crystallize public opinion by simultaneously cross-applying fear and intimidation with promises of security, familial warmth and inclusion - the classic good guy/bad guy manipulation. Essential to this is the flow of information - who gets heard and what is said.
After World War II, a growing anti-propaganda tradition in the U.S. culminated in the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, outlawing domestic dissemination of deceptive materials. Then, the Fairness Doctrine of 1949 would designate radio stations with FCC licenses as "public trustees", required to make "every reasonable attempt to cover contrasting points of view". This mandated equal time for subjects of personal attacks and balanced access for political candidates, among other provisions.
Enforcement of these laws would be lax, however, demonstrated by the "red scare" era, the U.S. government and surrogate forces sought to galvanize public sentiment against the threat of communism. The growth of the polling industry helped ease America's collective paranoia, reassuring us that not as many people actually shared the gripping fear of danger the government told us was imminent.
But when Rush Limbaugh went on the air, it was a new day in media. The Fairness Doctrine was struck down, and a for-profit political spin machine revved up, preaching a subset of Conservative values at variance with Goldwater or Eisenhower, but which coincided well with arms build-ups, aggressive foreign policy stances including covert operations, anti-environmental causes, Ayn Rand-style defenses of wealth accumulation - and of course, selling consumer goods and services. Taking Root in Hometown, USA Through the late 80s, the top rated morning drive-time shock jock Howard Stern, had already pioneered the art of on-air "legalized" slander in the post-Fairness Doctine era, viciously excoriating public figures he found vapid or who he felt had copied his shtick. Indeed, Stern claimed that Limbaugh's show took off only after Rush learned from him "how to grow balls".
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict ethics. He recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of international adoption and curbing overpopulation, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, "honest" music and art and obscure vinyl records.
Personally, I cannot tolerate either one. I watched Hannity and Colmes last night on Fox. Mr. Hannity already has Barack Obama judged and sentenced due to his affliation to this Rev. Wright. There are no words to describe Mr. Limbaugh.
by
Linda Bailey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 52 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 6:45:06 AM
The reason the Limbaughs and the Hannitys dominate talk radio is that they are incredibly popular with the people who listen to talk radio (duh). And the reason for that popularity is that they tell that large segment of Americans exactly what they already believe and want to hear repeated, over and over and over again.
The corollary of that is they don't want to hear anything else.
Ignorance, racism, militarism, and fear of the Other are endemic in U. S. culture, and go right into the voting booth with the Dittoheads and, I'm afraid, with most voting Americans.
Vote for Obama or Clinton, but bet on McCain.
by
F T (Ted) Cloak Jr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 10:35:42 AM
to say that I USED to regard these guys' opinions highly . But that was BEFORE I discovered the unmitigated bias of the media in general. These broadcasters constantly lambaste what they call the mainstream or "drive-by" media, knowing full well that they are describing themselves.
It was the campaign of America's last true conservative statesman, Ron Paul, that awoke me to the error of my ways and to the pure PROPAGANDA that these shows are. They are right-wing to the hilt, and dangerous to critical thinking. The arrogance of the hosts is congagious to the listeners, who live on their every word. Dissent is conveniently screened out or cut off unexplained.
No one should have such power.
by
wgadget (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM
"Dissent is conveniently screened out or cut off unexplained. No one should have such power."
But how to manage this balance while preserving free speech? Whose responsibility is it if a corporation profiteers off political talk that has no journalistic integrity? The sponsors? The listeners? The station? The public? Concerned parents? Educators? Clergy?
One thing we can agree on - it shouldn't be regulated by the FCC.
It's interesting that you and I might call irresponsible, unbalanced reporting "bias" or "propaganda" but that Rush uses the term "drive-by" media, as if to liken it to low-level "street" misconduct, as opposed to a more white-collar or more historical term. A classic classist move, tinging on the more overt brand of race baiting we saw in Rush's "Obama the Magic Negro" song parody. This is because he knows he does it too, but wants listeners to differentiate "them" as other then "us". Hmm.
I'd reach across the aisle to second that Ron Paul was more forthcoming and truthful then any Republican by far, the only candidate not full of see-through rhetoric designed to sustain the classist stovepiping of the national wealth we've seen since 2000 through tired-ass fearmongering and military spending on the tab of unborn Americans.
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 10:03:02 PM
Some years ago while I was reading while my grandson was watching some afternoon kids' TV show in my living room; when it ended Rush Limbough's TV show came on. I was too lazy to get up and turn it off. I didn't pay much attention until Rush said that "This was his last TV broadcast." Then he said he had a list of ten items he requently got calls and letters on; the first item was about aliens occupying Wall Street business or some such. He read each item from 3 by 5 cards. The items were seriously off the wall. Then he said that if any of us viewers believed even one we were certifiable nuts cases. (Actually I thought one item was worthy of discussion.)
This led me to suspect that Rush goes with what works, knows better and doesn't have an ethicial bone in his body; it's about money and the witch godess, success!
by
Gerald Sutliff (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 6:20:31 PM
So true - I think I covered that in "Creating a NeoCon Safe Haven", pointing out that the hosts offer what the listeners often want to hear, as opposed to that which they perhaps should hear - for example, the whole truth, the actual percentages of people who support Bush or the war, the Gonzales testimony, frequent news from Iraq, etc.
I wouldn't say that talk radio listeners account for so many they will swing the tide though - current polls say no. Limbaugh's audience is also said to be only half of what it once was.
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 7:01:00 PM
"We need to decide what public media in America should look like."
No we don't. Because there is no such thing, contrary to the late 40's "fairness doctrine" as "public media." Media is created by individuals. Not by the general public. Unless you consider a mob roar to be "media."
I do not consume talk shows such as Limbaugh's or Hannity's, because I do not desire the product they sell in exchange for attention. But the broadcasters nevertheless find many who do. It is the sole right of the broadcasters to decide the content to be broadcasted on their property. There is no such thing as "public airwaves," because private entities gave the airwaves value, not the public. Any attempt by the government to legislate the use of those airwaves in a manner inconsistent with the use their actual owners wish to put them to, is theft.
by
Justin Hinkley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Sunday, March 16, 2008 at 8:41:29 PM
The fairness doctrine was only as fair as the government officials enforcing it, (up to 1987, not just since the late 40s). It's original purpose was to make FCC licensees "trustees" of the public good. For many years broadcasters understood this responsibility meant following the ethics of responsible journalism, until Limbaugh.
"Media is created by individuals. Not by the general public."
You may have forgot all the public broadcasters acros the globe - PBS, PRI, BBC, NPR, Armed Forces Radio to name a few.
"It is the sole right of the broadcasters to decide the content to be broadcasted on their property."
So there's no line? How about if they said "Justin Hinckley is a gay child molester" - you're on your own? Have to go retain a lawyer?
If you read the article, my case in point was that Hannity aired on his radio show the assertion by Rick Santorum that WMD were found in Iraq, shortly before the 2006 election, late on a Friday. It was debunked on TV and the internet as a desperate and cheap campaign stunt, but not corrected on Sean's radio show.
If your children were listening to that show, would you feel they were being responsibly informed?
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 10:24:57 PM
I know why the author is upset. For decades, the liberals have controlled the print media and most of the telecast media.
But they can't control these broadcasts, and it drives them crazy. They can't control them because there are people out there who actually would like to hear both sides of an argument or topic before making any decisions.
And the only place they can get the other side -- which is the last thing liberals want -- is non-liberal-controlled talk radio.
by
Ray Walton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 7:59:17 AM
We agree that people should hear both (or all) sides of an argument or topic before making any decisions. But we don't agree that non-liberal-controlled talk radio provides that balance. Limbaugh and Hannity hide the opposing points of view from their listeners.
What you say was "liberal control" was actually a legal statute on the books for decades preventing imbalance. The actual letter of the law was that stations should make every resonable attempt to include relevant contrasting points of view. I never said any one should be controlled, but they should have responsibilty to inform the public without deception. That seems simple and ethical, no?
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 10:42:19 PM
Rush Limbaugh & Hanity Success--It's called Capitalism
Re: Gustav's rant I have a solution for him.
Why not start his own radio show whereby he can offer comments and pontificate to his heart's content and promote his liberal philosophy.
I cannot imagine it would NOT be a success, considering the dearth of Socialist-Far-Left Radio Programs and a vast listerning audience of like-minded Moonbats, simply waiting for someone to rescue them from the obvious "monopoly" of the eeeeevil, far-right-wing-conspiracy talk show hosts, enjoy throughout the country.
Oh, wait, that has been tried: Can you say Radio Amerika?
Well, Professor Wynn, may I humbly remind you of that old saw: "Those who can do and those who can't teach."
by
Michael Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 8:08:43 AM
"Why not start his own radio show whereby he can offer...his liberal philosophy."
A radio show, or perhaps an online article?
"....vast listerning audience of like-minded Moonbats, simply waiting for someone to rescue them from the obvious "monopoly" of the eeeeevil, far-right-wing-conspiracy talk show hosts, enjoy throughout the country."
Let the record show the respondant initiated name-calling and the "straw man" deflection, as in "Oh it's sooooo terrible and evil and bad", already anticipated in the body of the article (common techniques used to avoid the core issue: is it ethical to hide facts from listeners?)
I'd like all the readers of this thread to learn what your ethics are, as a dedicated Hannity listener and supporter. Would you say Hannity does or doesn't responsibly report all pertinent facts to topics/issues?
Do you value balance when informing your friends and loved ones? Is it ever okay to intentionally dupe people?
Please advise, then the readers can make up their own minds on him, you, and me.
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 11:00:44 PM
Wow, I could rewrite this entire piece from the conservative perspective, but of course I would consider that were the truth as emphatically as the author believes . . . this stuff, which I find ridiculous. I wonder if he thinks the neocons are behind 9-11 too, or that the Reverend Wright has a valid point hidden somewhere in his sermons on whitey, but I risk proving his point on denigration by way of ridicule. Speaking of which, I would submit that the author is still in need of his day job if civility is required for professional political commentary. Silly me, I thought it simply meant someone else was willing to pay for your opinion, hopefully often enough to pay the bills, but I'm rather quaint.
I have listened to Rush, Hannity, and Boortz for many years, and I often agree with them. I also listen to NPR, the BBC, and Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, and I agree with them many times as well. I have to say that all of these people and organizations promote their own views in the way they select guests and the manner in which they portray the news. My guess is they are all human, and they all feel like they have an equal right to express themselves, and that their opinion is correct. Now I realize this is a radical concept, but I think we will have to embrace the fact that this problem will continue apace until we do away with humans in Journalism.
I have also noted that only those on the left claim fancy titles like "journalist" and probably for good reason, isn't Dan Rather a well-respected journalist? Geeez, call me an entertainer too.
I suppose the most ironic part of this screed is the juxtaposition of the author's call for a healthy and open debate in society against his admonition that only the government can ensure the fairness and accuracy of the content. I would contend that talk radio has flourished because it is just about the only remaining place conservatives can freely express themselves. Without it I wonder how many people or businesses would use AM radio at all, certainly not as many as FM or TV, never mind the internet. I also believe it explains why FoxNews owns the ratings wars against all the other cable news outlets, because it's a lone voice. I submit the real complaint by the author is that the right HAS an effective voice, finally.
This call for government monitoring is instructive and telling, but not compelling. Perhaps if the feds could ever figure out how to run Amtrack or the Postal Service, or if they could ever bring the entitlement programs back into solvency, or if they could drain the swamps that pass for our inner-city schools, perhaps then more citizens would entrust them with picking the guest lineup on their favorite TV or radio show, but I doubt it. On the other hand, it might reinvigorate the public library system.
In response to the admonitions raised for training our young, I have six (so far) and I encourage them to watch different programs, and I have had them listen to Rush as well as Amy Goodman, and I continue to encourage them to think for themselves. I am not afraid of what they might hear or think because I believe in THEM and their ability to discern, even though they are almost bereft of the government's wisdom or direction in these things. As a result, I can proudly say that each of the three main candidates will be getting some votes from my greater household. Unlike the author, I am not afraid of that diversity of opinion.
by
Bryan Brattin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 2:13:35 PM
"I could rewrite this entire piece from the conservative perspective"
Do it! But I think there are a few asymmetries...be sure to interview Rush's call screeners for us, will you?
"I wonder if he thinks the neocons are behind 9-11 too"
No, and I blogged on that here, but I'd still welcome a new investigation.
"Reverend Wright has a valid point hidden somewhere in his sermons...?"
I think this discussion is moving such radical black church-speech out into the daylight for the positive. He can't call the whole country racist if he really means just our government, or some in our government. He's now paying for that...definitely poor phrasing. Yes, the government's black ops have come back to haunt us, but he worded it as if it was the people's fault. No, HIV/AIDS was not planted, too extreme for me, though I'd heard the claim before.
"...only those on the left claim fancy titles like "journalist"...isn't Dan Rather a well-respected journalist?"
I had weighed in on Rather's rather interesting and complex case here. Egotistical and flawed, humbled by the furor over the disputed memo which was never even needed to prove the Air Guard story, but surely Dandy Dan has a story to tell about CBS News as a top insider regarding illicit White House influence on news coverage. Let's hear his sworn testimony versus Redstone's!
"...the most ironic part of...the author's call for a healthy and open debate in society [is] his admonition that only the government can ensure the fairness and accuracy of the content."
WHERE did I say that? The FCC is (currently) the worst arbiter possible for this, allowing continuing deregulation over great citizen outcry, and also pushing to end net neutrality - I never advocated for new government controls, just reported that there has already been government control for most of our lives...
"I have six (so far) and I encourage them to watch different programs..."
Then I don't believe we have a quarrel - you should encourage your kids to have balance and make up their own minds, bravo! Too bad they have to get it from different places.
I'd like to hear your thoughts - if Rush Limbaugh would have Amy Goodman on his show, we would get information more quickly with a thorough, transparent vetting of logic and research, no? I'm sure she'd love to have Rush or Sean on her show, but do you think Rush would appear there, or have her on his show?
Isn't a format like McLaughlin Group far less cowardly, where both sides are invited to freely discuss matters together for all to see the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments?
"... the right HAS an effective voice, finally."
Agreed, but do you say it is an ethical voice?
Could you and I perhaps agree on what constitutes "ethical commentary", whether it was a patriotic responsibility and if its includes intentional distortion? Thanks for taking the time to write...
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 12:08:04 AM
Look at the tone of your oped, and the tone of my comments, and you see the same exact phenomenon in a microcosm that we are discussing. Both of us feel our points are valid, and that our views are the most accurate. You are not the least interested in changing your point of view, any more than I am, because we both consider our views to be based on the most accurate interpretation of the world around us. This is why it is demeaning to claim the high ground, it's not yours, at least in my view. This is why you feel those who hold different views are somehow dishonest or unethical. I doubt you have sat through a solid week's worth of Rush's program, but I could be wrong. I say that because if you had you would soon recognize the rhetorical ploys he uses and see that he is deliberately tweaking the left in a satirical manner. Sometimes I think he goes too far, and sometimes I flat out disagree, but I recognize in his efforts his desire to be fair. I can certainly defend him or Sean, or even Amy, with far more vigor and veracity than you can muster for Dan.
Your admonition about my children getting a fair and complete view from only one source is simply silly, since there is no single person who has all of the answers. Even if there were, the ability to recognize that is still important. You should rethink that, unless you are claiming to be that person or to know such an individual. That would indeed be pompous and arrogant.
by
Bryan Brattin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 9:29:33 AM
Our discussion a microcosm of Sean Hannity's show?
There is a difference Bryan, there is no doubt there will be struggles between class or ideology long after we're dead, but we are discussing the issues civilly and thoughtfully here, no? I'd like to demonstrate what I think would be a more accurate 'microcosm' of the way Hannity communicates (I would never write like this, I'm trying to make a point about how they operate):
Since Mr. Brattin here seems to feel the need to defend a junkie, we need to really question his judgment. I would have serious questions about his decisions, for example raising his kids, because he gets his daily fix of insight from a man who has been divorced three times and has been hooked on "hillbilly heroin" for God knows how long - for all we know, he could be popping a few tabs right now somewhere. If Brattin allies himself with this type of sleaze - pathetic addicts - who knows what he might be capable of, and, by Christ our savior, I'd advise anybody to think twice about letting your kids anywhere near him, because I really care about the young people in this country.
My apologies for this sliming of you, it was of course ridiculous, but proves the original point of my essay, that through repetition of character assassination, guilt-by-association, fearmongering and hatemongering (and self-righteousness), talk radio is all-too effective in persuading our kids and those of us with less discerning intellects of whatever the host wants.
Hannity did this all week - if you just change your name to Obama in the above passage, and switch 'junkie' for 'black racist', this is how ridiculous Sean sounds in conflating Rev. Wright's misdeeds with Obama's record.
Honestly, I was surprised at the reaction to my essay - first that so many mistakenly thought I was calling for government regulation when I wasn't - (hence a need for repetition?), but also that so many defended Rush and Sean by taking shots at me, or the tit-for-tat, or other distractions, just as I anticipated in the piece.
My hope was a dialogue - I thought that those who support Rush and Sean would argue that domestic propaganda should go on unabated, or argue that their broadcasts were not propaganda. For others, the question is how domestic propaganda should be addressed in society without impinging on anyone's right to free speech.
You have it wrong that I'd think those who hold different views are dishonest or unethical, for example an ultra-right wing Conservative or Evangelical. It's all in how they argue their case - using deceit and dirty tricks is dishonest and unethical and Rush and Sean do this every day in many ways, as outlined.
I hail any Conservative that practices small, unintrusive government, strict ethics and fiscal responsibility, I just don't see any in sight. I'd vote for Eisenhower in a heartbeat if he wasn't rolling in his grave.
I've been listening to Rush on and off for almost twenty years - for most of the early 90s, it was the only station I could pull in at work and I listened every day for about 3-4 years. I see when he satirizes, and see his desire to appear as if he's trying to be fair, but this, I assert is him at his most subversive. The occasional left wing call that makes it through (like when they fool the screener by changing gears) is the exception, but nowhere near "balance" and certainly not representative of the US population which has been anti-war by a majority for years.
Rush lets through many more dittoheads then dissenters, just count the proportion any day. Obviously the show would be a daily free-for-all if he didn't have this set as policy - and Rush's own promos mention that his is a "calming" environment for Conservatives. I monitor about an hour of Sean every day and I'm just disgusted at his bosses - again it's not just the politics, I often agree with Thomas Friedman, for example - it's Sean's method of delivery, which is the brand of sleaze and slime and exploitation that continues to foment mob mentality and dis-unite the US.
If you feel up to defending Rush or Sean, I'd be happy to meet you online in a new thread or different blog and discuss this openly, bring out a few of these heated issues and do a point-counterpoint thing. This would be exactly the balance I think is missing today and may be interesting to many others as well.
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 8:46:51 PM
"We need to decide what public media in America should look like. I for one will teach my children not to name-call, hide facts, overgeneralize, or "practice to deceive"."
Does the author feel the same towards MSNBC's Keith Olberman or NBC's Chris Matthews, both of whom are staunch liberal democrats who overgeneralize, name-call (ESPECIALLY that hate pig Keith) and fail to show all the "facts?" I do give him credit however for having the guts to bring up that failed liberal experiment known as Air America. I tried to listen to it, but got sick and tired of the daily Bush hate (especially with that wretched hate-filled Randi). I mean, how many different times do we need to hear the same thing? Ok, you hate Bush. I get it. At least Conservative AM talk radio is dynamic and not one day is ever the same.
One thing that liberas constantly fail to address is why AM talk radio got so popular: the media's left-leaning tendencies. Murdoch started FoxNews to counterbalance this exact thing. Of course, liberals and democrat pontificating demogogues whine about that too.
by
Mr Stq (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments)
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 7:34:20 PM
Yes! They hurt their own arguments when they get personal, name call, etc. I said in the article the left does it too and should be held to the same standard, offering examples. I think Thom Hartmann and Rachel Maddow are pretty good for progressives, though no one's perfect.
Who do you think is least biased?
by
Gustav Wynn (67 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 309 comments)
on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 12:14:06 AM
19 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
